There is a young man in your ward that seems to push the limit on the cloths he wears. Both his parents are active, but they seem to be struggling with him. He is worthy to pass the sacrament, and even wears a white shirt to church on Sundays. But sometimes he wears t-shirts under his white dress shirt with rock band logos that are plainly visible (like “Led Zeppelin”). His belts have spikes all the way around them. He has a long chain that hangs out of his pocket connected to his wallet. One Sunday while passing the sacrament he wore a skull belt buckle, It was very large and obvious to everybody what it was. Another Sunday he wore a Confederate Flag belt buckle.
You’re the Bishop, what do you do?
- Do Nothing, You’re just glad he comes to church
- Talk with him, and ask him to dress more appropriable when passing the sacrament
- Talk to his parents and ask them to do something
Would your answer change if he lived with just a mother, and no father present?
Would your answer change if you have several African American families in your ward?
Nothing.
You said his parents are struggling but you didn’t say there was anything about his actual behavior that’s problematical. OTOH, you said he’s worthy in your opinion. I HATE that concept, personally, but I take that statement to mean that he makes efforts to respect basic principles of decency and reverence. You also say that he’s willing to be compliant about expectations that may or may not be enthusiastic about, namely the white shirt.
So what’s the problem? Surely not that he has an internal sense of himself and expresses it in a generational style that most of America would take in stride.
If it were me and I felt I was compelled to say something for the sake of his parents it would be “so glad you have you here every week. Keep up the great work!” And I’d say it in front of his parents so there wasn’t any possibility that they were on is case for the sake of what others thought of him if there isn’t behavior that’s more troubling than his pushing back against unreasonable limits imposed for the sake of conformity alone.
Smile and help him feel welcome, up to the point he starts displaying symbols of hatred and racism. At that point, he will be asked not to display those.
For me, this one is far different from the previous entry. The Bishop is the head of the Aaronic Priesthood in the Ward, and thus should make it clear that the visible clothing is unacceptable when passing the Sacrament, and that he will not be allowed to pass the Sacrament when dressed so. The uniform is part of the job. You can dislike and complain about the uniform, but unless it’s changed, it’s still the Bishops’ rule.
I can already hear the complaints of “but it’ll drive him away from church!”, but I say he’s more being pushed away by being forced to pass the Sacrament when he obviously doesn’t want to.
Jewelfox, I agree with you, about the symbols of hate, but there are many Americans who are taking the confederate flag as a symbol of hate, and white supremist said are using it that way more and more as they find that it offends those they wish to offend.
Me, I lived in the south when the Confederate flag was a symbol of Southern pride and not hate speach.
So, ten years or so ago, I would say and do nothing but welcome the boy to church. Now, I am not so sure. It might depend on where we all live, or if there are blacks in the ward who might be offended enough to leave. So, if I was the bishop, I might bring up the subject in the yearly birthday interview or at some other point when I have a chance to chat with the young man. Then, I would find out first, what does the flag symbolize to him? Then I might suggest that some people see it as a symbol of white supremacy and does he want to project that image.
If it was just nonconformist type things he was wearing, like the scull belt buckle, I sure wouldn’t say anything.
Unless he wears something particularly egregious such as a T-shirt with a half naked woman, cuss words, or a swastika, I would wait until the next youth interview and speak to him about it at that time. Many youth (well, maybe most) are clueless about the impact dress and demeanor can have on others, and maybe he is unaware that his T-shirts can be viewed through his shirt. I would focus on the lesson of dressing appropriately for the occasion, and express gratitude for wearing a shirt and tie to church. I would also offer to purchase a package of plain white T-shirts for the young man to wear on Sunday.
I agree with Anna. The buckle may have no connotation other than a cool design. If the belt buckle is not reflective of his attitude or behavior, there can be a reasonable solution devoid of current fashionable hysteria/violence.
I would be OK with most things, but wearing the confederate flag buckle would not be OK. The narrative that the Confederate flag represents Southern pride *only* works for white people. Black people — including black people who live in the South — do not see it that way. So, to me, a concept of Southern pride that is itself racially divisive is extremely problematic. So, the main question is whether Mormonism abides racism (however implicit, rather than explicit) or not.
The sign outside says “Public Welcome” or something like that. If a 66-year-old white make comes in wearing a confederate belt buckle, will/should the bishop eject him from the building? No! Other ward members may or may not like him for his belt buckle, or for his automobile, or for his accent, or for his haircut, or for his tie color, but that is their decision. Some will be personally offended because of the buckle, and rightly so for some of them. But he is still welcome — maybe after a while he’ll drop the buckle, or maybe not. No one is required to be his personal friend. What is the difference for a 16-year-old white male?
My question: Why does/did Bishop Bill want to control the dress of the youth in his ward? Is it a control thing? A power thing? What about loving and serving the ward members as individuals– that’s what a bishop should try to do.
Andrew S.,
I hope you will agree that one member’s wearing of a buckle as described does not mean that Mormonism abides racism.
Ji, I’m sure Bishop Bill was awesome at taking care of people in his ward. These various delicate true-life scenarios (from almost a decade ago) are posted as conversation starters. I know you very much support being charitable in assuming motives of church leaders.
Overall, I agree with the comments about leaving him alone. He should be allowed to decide what he wants to wear to attend church.
However, that he is passing the sacrament (fullfilling a role/job/assignment that has a clear dress code) changes things slightly for me. For one thing, it makes the confederate flag completely inappropriate. No black member should ever have to accept something as sacred and personal as the sacrament from someone who is openly wearing a symbol of black oppression. It’s unfair and unright to put the black members in that position.
And then I wonder at the boy himself. WHY is he wearing clothing that pushes the boundaries of the dress code for passing the sacrament? If I were the bishop, I think I might start here. Since the boy accepted a church duty from the Bishop, the Bishop could kindly, gently, non-judgmentally ask the boy why he is wearing the Tshirts, etc. Find out if the boy doesn’t really want to be passing the sacrament (or attending church) in the first place. See what is going on. Let the boy talk. Don’t offer criticism or comments or suggestions for change. Just get to know the boy.
Then the Bishop should go home and pray about it and try to understand where the boy is coming from. Perhaps there is something the Bishop can do to make it easier for the boy (perhaps he needs someone to buy him white undershirts). Perhaps not. But at least if there is an underlying problem, the boy has been heard.
Frank – there is no uniform
Andrew, I realize that the Confederate flag as southern pride only works for white people. But I assumed the boy in question would be white as I can’t imagine a black person wearing one. As a white boy, he may have been taught to see the flag totally as a symbol of his state without any connotations of the racism behind it. And 10-15 years ago, there would not have been the media attention that it gets now as a symbol of racism .
If it happened today, I am afraid I would assume the boy was purposely trying to offend and would not even allow him to pass the sacrament. Even if that meant risking offending him to the point he didn’t come back. But given the rest of the things the boy was said to be wearing, I also assumed this was a case pulled from bishop Bill’s time as bishop. Led Zeppelin? That kind of dates the whole question as in the past.. Back when Led Zepplelin was on T-shirts, the Confederate flag and monuments to Confederate leaders just was not in the news.
Regarding uniform: although it is not in any way official, I have long felt that “uniform” was the best way to describe what men are generally expected to wear: dark slacks, white shirt, tie, optional suit coat is more like a uniform than a dress code. Officially required it is not. Uniform it is.
The Confederate flag is unacceptable, but how to approach the issue with tact is the problem and I don’t claim to know a good way to go about it.
When I was in the youth I had no white shirt to wear for months at a time. Every six months or so we got a talk in class about why we should wear a white shirt. It had no effect on me because 1) my parents didn’t buy into the need for a white shirt and 2) I preferred blue. Luckily I didn’t take offense that the lessons were I passive-agressively targeting me.
ji,
I’m legitimately not sure. The message I’m getting is that people are not very concerned about the optics of this. Instead, it seems like people are more concerned about accommodating inconsiderate unthoughtful rudeness (at best) or racism (at worst). If you allow this because the sign says “public welcome,” you are implicitly guaranteeing that the only public that is welcome are those who are OK with seeing racially offensive symbols — e.g., white people. Like, disallowing the symbol doesn’t mean the church becomes unwelcome for white people, but it does mean that the church becomes a lot more welcome for black people.
Then again, given the history of the church, I’m just saying that it wouldn’t be a surprise if this is a feature, not a bug. So I honestly cannot agree that allowing this belt buckle means that Mormonism doesn’t abide racism given all the facts to the contrary.
FWIW, I also agree with ReTx. I think it’s possible or even probable that the boy is not intending to make a racially intimidating statement here. But this absolutely can and should be a teaching moment.
Anna,
I don’t dispute that many white people are raised to believe that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern pride. But I do think that black folks have always known — even if the media and the rest of the country is very late to coming on board — that such pride intrinsically is based on something more insidious. So, to me, it doesn’t matter whether the boy was intending to offend or not. This would not be OK 10-15 years ago (or whenever) just because America wasn’t talking about its racist legacy back then.
Ji:
Props for the consistency of your position across both You’re the Bishop threads so far (though, as you know, I personally find that position untenable). What hypo would it take for you to say that the bishop should intervene based upon a visitor’s appearance?
Others:
To the extent that you believe the bishop should intervene here because there is a “dress code” for performing this priesthood ordinance, your argument rests on shaky ground at best. Just ask any YM leader or bishop in a ward with any serious cultural or economic diversity: there is no clear dress code, and that is as it should be. Thus, It’s interesting (but not surprising, given current events) that comments about a young woman’s dress at church appear to defer to the young woman’s preferences, while comments about a young man’s dress at church appear to condemn the young man (or, at least, to suggest that he ought to be confronted about his dress at some point by his bishop, while the young woman should never be so confronted). The bishop is the priesthood leader of both persons, and is morally accountable for teaching both persons. I don’t find the priesthood/non-priesthood concept to be a distinction that makes a difference. Is there any other way consistently to distinguish this case from that of the young woman?
” I don’t find the priesthood/non-priesthood concept to be a distinction that makes a difference. Is there any other way consistently to distinguish this case from that of the young woman?”
It’s not priesthood/non-priesthood for me. It’s that the boy accepted a responsibility. He ‘took a job’ so to say. And with that job comes known expectations. While there is apparently no ‘handbook’ dress code, in our ward, there is still a strongly upheld dress code. Our bishop brings it up in sacrament regularly. “Isn’t it a blessing to see the young men, dressed so well in their white shirts and ties, and sporting a aura of reverence serving us the sacrament?” I have no doubt our Bishop would be all over any boy trying to serve the sacrament in a blue shirt. I recently overheard a adult man being teased by another for wearing a purple shirt (we live in cowboy land – outside the church feminine colors are the norm for men dressing up) because it meant he couldn’t come fill in on a Sunday when we didn’t have enough boys to serve. (For the record, I find this all ridiculous, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the reality of my ward.)
If the girl had accepted a job in the ward (I can’t actually think of an example where this would happen) where there was a specific code for dress, I’d feel the the same way about her.
Should the boy decide to never serve the sacrament again, I’d say leave him to make his own choices. But with accepted responsibility comes a duty to perform those responsibilities – and that’s where I become okay with the Bishop feeling him out for what is going on.
Frank, “being forced to pass the Sacrament when he obviously doesn’t want to.”
I don’t think this is a correct assumption. From the story, I didn’t gather the boy was being forced. Maybe that’s true, but I’d be careful about that assumption.
Rick B – you’re quite right. It would certainly take more knowledge of the circumstances to make that assumption. I felt I could relate to the young man, having felt that way myself, but that’s just projecting.
I’d probably say nothing until he wore the confederate flag belt buckle. At that point, he would have gone over the line, and I would discretely take him aside. I would explain to him that the whole purpose of having the priesthood is to learn to serve in God’s name, and that the deacons are there to facilitate the members of the ward being able to have a spiritual experience while partaking the sacrament. The deacons don’t want to do anything that would detract from that. We don’t want to draw any sort of attention to ourselves, we simply want them to have a good experience and hopefully feel their Savior’s love. I’d explain to him that symbols can have different meanings to different people, and that his confederate flag can symbolize hatred and oppression to some people, which is the opposite of what should be communicated during the sacrament, and we don’t want to risk anybody feeling that way. I’d point out that his cool skull belt buckle which he and his friends might admire could have a different effect on the elderly widow and that whether she’s right or wrong in her reaction, we’re only interested in her being able to feel at peace. I’d then ask him to think about the way he dresses to pass the sacrament and make sure that his highest priority in choosing what he wears is a desire to serve the Lord’s supper. I’d then wait and see what happened. Most 12-13 year-old boys, in my experience, would react well to that.
So, three guys walk into the chapel.
#1 “I’m offended by that”
#2 “I’m not offended”
#1 “I’m offended that you’re not offended”
#3 “I’m offended that you’re offended because he’s not offended”
Whose offense is more relevant? (if any)
“I don’t find the priesthood/non-priesthood concept to be a distinction that makes a difference. Is there any other way consistently to distinguish this case from that of the young woman?” I think the key is that the boy is performing the most sacred rite we have at church and is on public display. There is literally no calling for women that carries this kind of responsibility since women only “lead” other women and children. They don’t represent the church, except as missionaries and in the temple. In other churches, we have clergy who are wearing specific vestments to perform rites, and those vestments have significance. We are low church, so we don’t do that, but we also have some level of oversight needed to avoid detracting from the rite (and it seems mostly destined to be defined locally even if that means they read the tea leaves from SLC).
As to the confederate flag, if this was in the west, I am not sure how much it was understood as a symbol of racism 10-15 years ago in say, California or Nevada, but growing up back east (admittedly north of the Mason Dixon line) you’d better believe we knew what it meant. “Southern Pride” that is only enjoyed by whites is a pride based on a bygone era of racism and slavery. When I briefly lived in rural Texas, they were very big on the confederate flag, and black students kept their mouths shut about it, knowing full well the implications. I was a bit confused by this (and constantly called a Yankee) because I had thought Texas was in Mexico during the Civil War.
Andrew, to me, the most important point is whether he is intentionally trying to offend. I don’t think it is appropriate to humiliate a kid for lack of political awareness. So, today, I think most people are aware, and if not, they really need correcting. But ten or more years ago, many whites were idiots about such things. Believe me, I live in Utah’s Dixie where many still think the Confederate flag is a great symbol of the local university. And Utah was never a slave state and was Mexico during the Civil war. The flag does not have racist meaning to them, so they can’t even imagine why someone else thinks it does. People do have different experiences and put different meanings on different symbols.
I am not defending the flag at all. I am just saying that before you judge someone you should clarify their meaning. Do they even know they are being offensive? If they don’t, you do more damage by humiliating them. People cannot solve race relations by assuming that everybody knows when they are offensive. I have spent a lot f time educating your gender about how not to be sexist pigs, so, I am suggesting to you that perhaps you can spend the time to ask if a person intends to be offensive, before you judge them purposely trying to offend you. It is called give people the bennefit of the doubt.
So, in spite of you trying to argue with me over this, I go back to my original answer. I would talk to the boy and ask what the things he wears mean to him, then I would ask if he is aware that others might find what he wears offensive, specifically about the Confederate flag belt buckle, and then I would tell him to think it over. I would try for a compromise that he can horrify the fuddyduddys who might think his skull is inappropriate for passing the sacrament, but that there are real issues with the confederate flag and it should not be worn in public at all.
I consider myself progressive, but good night – it might be time to join the Baptists. Have we NO standards are all? The sacrament is a sacred ordinance. He needs to be taught a correct principle (you dress appropriately when participating in a sacred ordinance) and then he can choose for himself.
Anna – Why is it “humiliating” to be taught that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and oppression? Why is it “humiliating” to be taught that something you’ve done/said/worn is offending others? Why is establishing and defending boundaries (i.e., what is inappropriate to wear while passing the sacrament) “humiliating”? This seems like white fragility, i.e., privileging this presumably white young man’s feelings over the feelings of black folks when dealing with racism. Why do you assume that the “teaching moment” Andrew recommends is so awful for the young man being taught? Andrew didn’t suggest humiliating the kid.
Anna,
If he is not intentionally trying to offend, then there should be no problem with using this as a teaching moment. No need to humiliate in *either* case, but in *either* case, one can be firm that that is not acceptable. My main issue is that many commenters here don’t seem to think that it is unacceptable. But that’s fine — maybe Mormonism is a religion that abides white supremacy and that’s what we should expect.
I’m not *assuming* that anyone already knows what is offensive — I’m just pointing out that it is offensive regardless of intention, and regardless of previous knowledge. Just like men being sexist pigs is hurtful *even when we don’t intend it*, and should be called out *even when we didn’t intend it.*
I personally do not understand why you think I’m the one trying to argue with you about this, when you were the one who first mentioned my name and my only interactions with you have been to respond to your comments addressing me by name.
(P.S., there is plenty of overt white supremacy in Utah so I would honestly be very skeptical that any Utah display of the Confederate flag is harmless.)
OK, time to let you all know what I did. I spoke to the young man and told him the following: God did not care how he dressed, and I didn’t care how he dressed. But we have several elderly widows in the ward, and the sacrament was for some of them the most spiritual event of the whole week. I said they it might take away from the spirit for those ladies if they looked up and saw the Skull belt buckle right at eye level. So I asked him if he could not wear the large belt buckles with skulls and flags on them for those widows. I did not mention anything about the flag buckle in particular, and the one black sister in our ward was a concern for me. But I lumped all the belt buckles together, and he understood. He never wore them again. I didn’t say anything about the rock logo t-shirts worn under his white shirt, as that didn’t bother me, and the elderly sisters didn’t know who Led Zeppelin was anyway!
You did well, Bishop!
For those who say the buckle is unacceptable — I understand your dislike, but what does unacceptable mean? That he should be barred from entering the building? Words have meanings, and I don’t think unacceptable is the right word. I think the word most people here want is uncouth or something like that.
Gadflown,
Bishops should not take it upon themselves to supplant parents to the children in the ward — bishops should sustain and support and strengthen parents. It is a parent’s role to teach children how to dress for Sunday meetings. A bishop should not be a busybody telling the children how to dress. If a bishop really thinks a child’s dress is unsuitable and wants to eject the child from the meeting, he should ask the parent to address the concern.
If the bishop wants to be a busybody and tell the children in the ward how to dress, let him do it by going to Priesthood or Relief Society meeting and telling the parents what the acceptable dress is for children attending his ward. He might find that parents don’t share his attitude and don’t appreciate his meddling. Rather, let the bishop welcome and serve all who show up.
“and the elderly sisters didn’t know who Led Zeppelin was anyway!” That REALLY shows the age of the story.
Thought-provoking post and series, I hope you keep it up! I don’t envy you your position and realize these are difficult issues.
I have to say though, that your response was unfortunately condescending and patriarchal (in a mysoginistic way) to elderly women. It seems like you drew on the stereotype of out-of-touch-uncompromising-fragile-nit-picky-old-biddies as a scapegoat for clearly (according to the many appalled posts by middle-aged men and women here) was a much larger issue. The idea that these older women just wouldn’t understand like the men do or everyone else does is completely sexist, agist, and condescending to women. I wager that many of those older women have raised teenage boys themselves, and likely multiple generations of them and are completely aware of the landmines this poses for leaders as well as the attention-grabbing and rebellious phase this kid is going through. To insinuate that such women alone would be shaken makes them shoulder the responsibility for this issue that you wouldn’t take on yourself despite the fact that you were offended too. If none of the widows had complained to you, using them as a group (a small identifiable group) is dishonest and could draw hard feelings toward them from the young man. Will he quietly suspect that one or several of these women snitched on him? When he looks them in the face next week, will he be trying to figure out which one of them targeted him? In the least, will he harbor (consciously or subconsciously) resentment toward these women who are surpressing his expression and style (as odeous as it is)?
YM or YW wishing to serve and act in the name of JC should be expected to not wear hate symbols and taught as much. In light of our admittedly racist past, we need to step up our curriculums to teach equality and relationships.
I firmly believe that it takes a village, and that parents bring their children to church youth programs and Sunday services so those with stewardship and sustained callings (that’s you, his YM teachers and leaders) can help teach and reinforce moral issues.its not meddling, it’s an implied expectation for any parent bringing kids to church. As a leader in the YM and quorum president, you were completely within bounds to address the issue. There was probably a respected YM teacher or leader who has the relationship and respect of the young man to address it frankly and in an upbeat and loving way. Not every leader could, but there are a few special ones who can.
I don’t think you needed scapegoats though, and if you wanted to call him to his pastoral PH duties, it’s important to remember that it includes everyone from children to families, potential converts, and people of all races/color/age/gender. As a matter of fact, deacons, teachers and priests have general responsibilities to the entire Ward, high priests on the other hand are the ones who have the specific duty to widows, so your PH expectation of the young man was misaligned.
That being said, what the heck is wrong with those parents? Buying him those things? Letting him go to church that way? Obviously your problem is much bigger than a young hooligan wearing symbols, it’s multigenerational racism and ignorance.
In response to gadflown’s comments about the general inconsistent responses to these scenarios, I don’t think they are comparable. Clothing coverage (a.k.a.) modesty is generally over-enforced and also problematic for a bishop to discuss with a young woman. Part of the problem is the entire culture that puts a middle-aged man discussing things of a sexual nature with a young woman. I will admit that I assumed that the clothes she was wearing were not really immodest according to most people outside the church. This is quite different than wearing a symbol of oppression.
In response to Ji’s comment, I just want to say that *my* usage of the term unacceptable does not mean I would eject anyone from a meeting. Not sure how we got there.
For those of you who think there is or should be a “uniform” for passing or administering the sacrament, here is the official policy from Handbook 2:
“Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance.”
Please especially note the last sentence – “nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance”. There is no uniform. White shirts are not required, only recommended. Ties are not required, only recommended.
According to DB’s quote from that manual, the bishop was well within his right to address the issue: “Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament.”
Following from MaryAnn’s last comment, which I agree with, I think my old post discussing Elder Oak’s address has some relevance (https://wheatandtares.org/2013/10/24/distracted-by-non-distraction/). There I was complaining about the overly broad generalisation of the concept to the entire sacrament meeting, when Elder Oaks (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/the-aaronic-priesthood-and-the-sacrament?lang=eng) was specifically addressing the ordinance itself.
Mortimer, you are completely right, I took the easy way out and put the blame on somebody else (the “old ladies”) Some mitigating factors that does not minimize my failings, is that we had almost no single “old men” in the ward, but we did have quite a group of widows. They were loved by all in the ward, and did not meet the stereotype of “nit-picky-old-biddies”. The young man in question also was well acquainted with these lades and got along well with them, before and after my talk with him. I was a new bishop, overwhelmed with my calling, with much bigger fish to fry than how low some girls dress was, or a skull and bones belt buckle. So I got them off my plate quickly with the least kickback as possible. Thanks for your feedback. I’ll never be bishop again, but would be very different now 16 years later.
“Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament.”
I’ve read about what it’s like to grow up Mormon and well-endowed in the chest area. I’ve also read what it’s like to go to great lengths to get a friend or investigator to attend church with you, only for them to leave in tears because their clothes were a distraction. Maybe this is intended to be non-binding advice which only pertains to the kids blessing and passing the sacrament, but it sums up a lot of problems with Mormon worship services. Some people’s comfort is simply more important than others.
I’m extremely glad that I was already out of the church by the time I realized my eternal gender was female, or I would’ve been given hell by the congregation I attended with for showing up in “distracting” women’s clothing. Some people can only think of my junk when they look at me and know what I used to look like, and they always make that my problem.
Also, “heritage not hate” is a painfully transparent excuse. The Confederate battle flag, along with so much of the Confederate statuary you see in the news lately, only became popular among reactionaries during the 1960’s. For obvious reasons.
They’ve just successfully rewritten history, so that their “innocent” displaying of slaveowner symbols is now seen as just that, and not as the reaction to desegregation that it actually was.
The confederate flag is an arbitrary symbol. It means different things to different people and groups of people who may share common perspectives. The meaning is not set in concrete. One way black people deal with the confederate flag around here is with the Jamacian flag which has a similar design except with different colors; black green and yellow. Some versions even have the stars in the bars.This flag could be offensive if it represents slave revolts on the islands and the subsequent ethnic cleansing of white people from the islands. I say let people fly whatever flag they wish as long as they don’t whine about other people’s flags. Whiners should fly pure white flags.
T.he sacrament is another matter. The LDS church owns the sacrament in their meetings. They may dictate any number of requirements and we must comply or take communion elsewhere. A deacon represents the church and should be firmly required to comply with its requirements in matters as central as this. The problem comes when there is lack of clarity of what are the requirements. Enforcement can be anywhere from gentle to brutal, the former being preferable. In my experience we underestimate the resilience of youth and over estimate it in adults.
My wife had a confederate flag front license plate on her car when we moved back to Utah many years ago. She visited a Baptist church in Salt Lake and the minister assumed she was from St George, Utah and a student at Dixie college. She pointed out the Mississippi state license plate on the back of the car and he still didn’t get it .Clueless is not the same as offensive and is allowed. Dixie college now a state university got rid of the flag but not the name, which seems rather inconsistent to me; but whatever makes them happy.
By the way, since we are getting offended, I want to point out that all those statues being taken down recently honor democrats. I haven’t seen one statue of a republican or a libertarian or a communist being called into question. I hold current democrats directly responsible for all the atrocities committed by prominent members of their party for the last 200+ years.
“Whiners should fly pure white flags.”
Yes, I agree that white Southerners should fly the most recent Confederate flag.
“I want to point out that all those statues being taken down recently honor democrats.”
So not only are you ignorant of the history behind when those statues were erected (during and in response to the Civil Rights era), you’re also ignorant of the history of your own country’s two political parties, and how the Party of Lincoln and the party of “Dixiecrats” basically switched sides during the 1960’s. Okay, then.
Bishop Bill,
Thanks for your comment. We do the best we can with the time, options and information available. Thank you for sharing your experiences for us to learn from and “Monday morning quarterback”.
Jewelfox:
I am most definitely attentive to the parties switching ideologies. I was politically aware, perhaps even obsessed during the ’60s when I was not quite old enough to vote. It happens more often than you might expect. For example it is happening again right now. Both sides are getting more extreme and moderation is vanishing. Moderate republicans did vote FOR the civil rights act or it would never have passed and conservative democrats voted against it. Once we had moderates, progressives and conservatives sprinkled in both parties and this allowed for sensibility, balance, compromise and progress. Now we have extreme ideology and thoughtless militant party discipline and grid-lock. Liberty and progress is lost.
What I find amusing is how people want to selectively blame historical figures for modern disagreeable movements and then flog them instead of engaging their contemporaries. I did the exact same thing in the opposite direction. You think I am an idiot and yet you don’t see the idiocy of it in the actions of people today I am trying to mock. It is crazy that a modern fascist Trump style neo-republican faction can cause the angry democrat lefties (who won’t take any blame for nominating a hypocrite and crook and barely losing an election to an idiot and clown) to want to rip down a statue of democrat Robert E Lee that has stood on the town square for over a century of change.
One thing now forgotten about Robert E. Lee is that he had enormous integrity. He fought for what he thought was right with everything he had. When he lost he graciously surrendered and cooperated with reconstruction and most importantly he did not lead a vigilante resistance movement that could have kept this country in military turmoil for many decades. Losing graciously, being wrong and changing course is a lesson that seems to have been lost by both sides today and that aspect of his life should be celebrated. (Hilary supporters I am talking to YOU!)
While you mentioned transparency, let us not forget the new and growing problem, especially in the South, of reverse discrimination. Go to the high schools and look at the preferential treatment especially when those scholarships are passed out, and look at what happens in the work place when a person doesn’t have any “diversity cards” to play and gets passed over for promotion to lesser qualified but more diverse applicants . Be the subject of an over zealous EEQ investigation without any merit and imagine the same scenario being played out with the race of each individual reversed. Why did Elizabeth Warren (Pocahontas to Trumpsters) pretend to be partly a native American in order to land that posh position at Harvard? This is a far bigger problem than remote segregationists hiding behind the statues in the town square.
Not that anyone is interested in a practical piece of advice from me but if you want to further enrage and thereby further empower the fascists now in control and growing in strength, do something relatively easy and not very meaningful in the end like violently and illegally tearing down a statue while not engaging anyone in a sensible or convincing discussion. Every CNN broadcast further strengthens those who support our president. They really don’t get it; the constant biased drip drip drip didn’t work during the election and it isn’t working now. Do you?
To those who are angry at the current political regime in control of Washington, remember two facts: 1. Trump is not respected by his own party; 2. It only requires about 20 republican senators to take him down. So why not find some middle ground instead of condoning violent rage on the streets and picking at old issues that do little beyond excite emotions? And further retrenching along party lines forcing potential moderates on both sides to do the same?